FARM AND STATION

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIX, Issue 282, 13 November 1929, Page 11

FARM AND STATION

Wet and Damp Wool WooJbrokers’ Warning to Growers What is the Farmers’ Responsibility (By “Sundowner.”) (Written for the ••’i'ribune'' All Rights Reserved.) Recently paragraphs have appeared in most New Zealand papers, and frequently under the auctioneers’ advertisements relating to wool sale fixtures, warning growers “in their own interests to Use the utmost care and supervision in seeing that sheep are dry before shearing. Growers are further requested to lie particularly careful in this matter so as to avoid any possible claims that may arise.” Without wishing in any way to defend any dishonest practice which may be calculated to induce wool buyers to purchase as wool rubbish which may be hidden away in the centre of the bale, I feel that in this matter of damp or wet wool the farmer would be placing himself in an entirely false and dangerous position were he to agree to the right of the buyer to make a claim for rebate should the wool he purchases later be found to be da mp.

HYGROSCOPIC QUALITY OF

Every farmer who has studied the characteristics of wool knows that it has what is termed a “hygroscopic” quality, or the ability to absorb moisture from the atmosphere, or from any other source. In the old days when wool was commonly shipped to London by sailing vessel, it was quite frequently found that the bales were each heavier by some pounds by the time they went on the London market. This was accounted for by the fact that even in the hold of the vessel the wool absorbed moisture from the damp sea air on the long voyage home. Nowadays when wool is hurried Home in a steamer, and often through the tropics practically all the way instead of round the Cape, wool is more often found to lose than to gain weight on the trip. This hygroscopic quality which wool possesses is also frequently made use of—or has been made use of by the woollen manufacturer in his unregenerate days—to make his manufactured material up to a specified weight per yard. He is reported to have managed this by storing his materials in cellars where a moist atmosphere is continuously maintained, resulting in a considerably heavier cloth per yard than that delivered by the looms, and yet not sufficiently moist or damp for the most astute to detect.

WHEN IS WOOL DAMP!

Some years ago, when hygrometers first came into use, the writer was classing a clip of wool, and wishing to test the efficiency of the then rather imperfect instrument, led a rope of wool from a bale which had already been tested for moisture content to a bucket containing three gallons ot water and left it overnight. In the morning the water had disappeared from the pail, presumably having been absorbed by the bale of wool which, though it weighed 271bs. more than before, registered only a very slight extra moisture content which could not be detected by the feel of the wool.

I believe that since that day instruments for detecting moisture in wool have been further perfected, but still the farmer must rely solely on the “feel” of the wool, this being done by. placing the bare forearm on the skin >

of a newly-shorn fleece when, it it feels cold, the wool is considered damp, and if still warm it is quite dry enough to shear. WHO IS TO DECIDE! In the present season when we are experiencing a considerable amount of damp weather during shearing, it Is more than probable that some sheep will be shorn which the owner and his shearers would class as dry, but which the buyer might consider damp. Again, although the sheep may be shorn when perfectly dry, the wool may absorb considerable moisture from the air, while in the bins, or even after it has been baled up.

Ara growers to be entirely at the mercy of the buyers’ op.inion as to whether this wool is dry or damp, and art< they to be liable to pay a refund, perhaps six months later, if the buyer decides when he gets it Home that it has lost weight c-n the journey?

Actually I have ■ far seen a ruling as to what ; .. veuafage of moisture wool may legitimately contain, and have assumed that wool-buyers were so trained or had reliable instruments to detect the moisture content of the lines they were offered, and fixed their prices accordingly. They are quite able to estimate the percentage of yolk in wool and make allowance for this when buying, and one would think the same knowledge wpuld enable them to estimate moisture. THE BUYER’S RISK. The conditions governing wool sales at central auctions in England, on which our conditions here are presumably based, throw the entire risk, even to the inclusion in the wool of foreign matter, on the buyer. Clause 2of the “conditions of sale” ruling in London read as follows:—“The goods to be weighed off by the warehouse-keepers, and taken away by the buyers at their own expenses within fourteen days, with all faults and defects of whatever kind (including defect or error of description).

Assuming that the same, or similar rules, govern our local wool auctions, the buyers have no claim whatever should they inadvertently buy wet or damp wool, and the brokers, acting solely as agents for the growers, should support the farmer in refusing to accept any liability on his behalf or their own.

PACKING WET WOOL-A FOOLISH PRACTICE.

Shearing and packing wet wool is not to the farmer’s advantage, as such always comes out of the bale—where it has possibly heated slightly—lacking lustre, and if it has been in the bale a long time, perhaps even discoloured. But even were it wringing wet and lose fifty per cent, weight on the trip Home I fail to see how the vendor can be held responsible when the wool is sold “with all faults and defects of whatever kind.” THE FARMERS’ ATTITUDE. Farmers are already looking to their brokers to protect them in this matter as they consider this demand merely the “thin edge of the wedge” which may introduce still other “possible claims.” The attitude of the farmer can be summed up in an extract from a letter which I have just received which runs as follows: “Just fancy a buyer having the cheek to claim, six months after purchase, on the moisture content of the wool- The next thing will be a claim for dags in the locks, or dust in the fleece, or hair fibre which is not pure wool.”

All I can suggest to the farmer is that, as an honest man, and in his own best interests, he takes every care not to shear sheep which he knows to be wet, but that once his wool is sold he assumes no responsibility for its moisture content.